Machine Gunners

By Bruce Munro

Created 17/08/15

[1]

Dunedin robotics enthusiast and programming
consultant Paul Campbell is firmly opposed to the development of killer
robot technology. Photo by Craig Baxter.

Unexpected
tension exists in New Zealand over killer robots. Kiwis are at the forefront
of artificial intelligence, they lead the global anti-killer robot campaign
and they are being accused of dragging the chain on the issue, all at the
same time, writes Bruce Munro.

Killer robots are on the global priority ''to-do'' list.

For some, that means full steam ahead on developing war machines
capable of making decisions and carrying out lethal missions without human
direction.

For others, it means an all-out effort to stop the technology
before what they predict could be a science fiction horror film writ large
and real.

The catalyst for killer robot mania was an open letter published a
fortnight ago, calling for ''a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond
meaningful human control''.

The letter has been signed by science and technology luminaries
including physicist Stephen Hawking, Apple Inc co-founder Steve Wozniak,
author of the gold

[2]

Associate Professor Charles Pigden, of the
University of Otago's Philosophy Department, doubts robots smart enough
to make their own decisions would always obey science fiction writer
Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Photo by Peter McIntosh.

Killer robots are ''a stupid and dangerous idea'', he states
emphatically.

''What we are doing with BabyX is the exact opposite of killer
robots. I have called it anti-robotics. We are trying to add the humanity
that is missing from current approaches to AI and human-computer
interaction.''

Could his autonomous AI ''go rogue''? What constraints are needed
to keep AI robots safe? But Prof Sagar is overseas attending more
international AI gatherings and will be unavailable for several weeks.

Helping tackle those questions from a different angle is Dunedin
philosopher Charles Pigden.

Associate Professor Pigden, of the University of Otago's
Philosophy Department, believes free will is the key to realising the
potential of AI, for good and bad.

In principle, human soldiers can live up to a set of rules for
war, a Just War Convention, Prof Pigden says.

They can do that because, although it is difficult, they can make
the complex moral distinctions between friend and foe, innocent and guilty,
those who are legitimate threats and those who are not.

''If you train them right and you have the right culture, it is
possible for soldiers to fight according to these rules,'' he says.

For an artificial intelligence to be capable of making the
sophisticated distinctions needed to obey Just War Conventions, it would
probably need the sort of consciousness that enables free will, he reasons.

''Were that the case, then we would not be able to control them.
And I'm not sure they could be relied on to obey the rules,'' he concludes.

Even if battlefield robots could be trusted to obey, could we
trust the people directing them?

That is a key concern for Associate Professor Colin Gavaghan, of
the University of Otago's Centre for Emerging Technologies.

He fears that countries or groups that could develop or get hold
of the technology would be less reticent about going to war because they
would not be risking the lives of their own human population.

''Without the emotional impact of returning flag-draped coffins,
and first-hand testimony from veterans, we may wonder how long the Vietnam
War would have continued,'' Prof Gavaghan says.

The use of robots to do the killing could cheapen the value of
human life by making it easier to view the enemy as targets rather than
fellow human beings, he adds.

The only up-side to autonomous robot enforcers Prof Gavaghan can
see, will be if they are not vulnerable to feelings of anger, hatred or the
need for revenge.

''We might hope that, were patrols to comprise emotionless robot
soldiers rather than frightened, flawed, sometimes vicious humans, we would
be less likely to see repeats of the likes of the Haditha massacre in Iraq,
or the horrific excesses of Abu Ghraib.''

Dr Colarik has a degree in robotics. He researches information
communication security at Massey University, where he is a senior lecturer
in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies.

Military leaders like to be clear about decision-making
accountability, he says.

A suggestion late last year by Blackwater founder Erik Prince that
a few thousand mercenaries could win the war against Isis was not adopted
by the US military because such a force would be too independent.

''The findings were that someone with just a little more access
time would have been able to change the targeting and launch those missiles
... Do you see where I'm going with that?''Do you really want your own
weapons to be turned against you?''

Other evidence, however, suggests nation states feel the need to
develop autonomous killer robots to stay in the game.

The only feasible means to avoid such an arms race would appear to
be a moratorium while the ground rules are established, or an outright ban
on the technology.

Both have been given voice.

The open letter, which this week had garnered almost 19,000
signatures worldwide, is calling for a ban.

United Nations special rapporteur Christof Heyns has told his
organisation, ''A decision to allow machines to be deployed to kill human
beings worldwide, whatever weapons they use, deserves a collective pause''.

New Zealand, which is chairing the UN Security Council, is still
collecting its thoughts on the subject. Since 2013, Peace Movement Aotearoa
(PMA) has been calling on the New Zealand Government to develop and pursue
a policy on killer robots.

But it has consistently failed to do so, PMA spokeswoman Edwina
Hughes says.

Ms Hughes and Ms Wareham are calling on the Government to stop
sitting on the fence and support international moves that could lead to a
multi-country protocol on lethal autonomous weapons systems (Laws).

In April, Ms Wareham attended a UN meeting on killer robots, held
in Geneva, at which New Zealand was conspicuous by its silence, she says.

''It was an odd show for a nation known for its disarmament
leadership,'' Ms Wareham says.

''It is a far cry from New Zealand's leading engagement on
disarmament matters before 2011 when the 25-year-old portfolio for a
disarmament and arms control minister was removed by the government.''

In response to questions to Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray
McCully, his office issued a statement attributed to a spokesman.

''This technology has not yet been developed,'' the statement
read.

''New Zealand will develop a position on Laws in concert with
other governments when the international community is clearer about their
potential impact and when there is a clearer understanding about how a line
could be drawn between automated and autonomous weapons.''

That sort of agreement may not arise if governments are left to
their own devices, foreign policy commentator Professor Robert Patman says.

''At the moment, given the lack of consensus and distrust within
the permanent five members of the UN Security Council I wouldn't put the
chances as particularly high,'' Prof Patman, of the University of Otago's
politics department, says.

He suggests people power may eventually force countries to adopt a
united approach.

''Increasingly, people are acting in a way that straddles
boundaries; coming together to form transnational pressure groups.

''And there does seem to be some general concern that killer
robots are one more problem we don't need.''

We come in peace: What's the chance?

Charles Pigden says not even Isaac Asimov was convinced
intelligent robots would not harm humans.

Asimov, the doyen of robot science fiction, created the Three Laws
of Robotics to underpin all robot interactions with humans. But, says
University of Otago philosopher Associate Professor Charles Pigden, there
are a couple of serious question marks over the concept and robot
deployment.

The Three Laws first appeared together in Asimov's 1942 short
story Runaround.

They are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction,
allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except
where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such
protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Later, he added a fourth, or zeroth, law to precede the other
three.

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity
to come to harm.

''That is the prime directive,'' Prof Pigden says.

''Asimov imagines you could create something sufficiently of a
human-like intelligence, or even super-human intelligence, and build in to
it that kind of moral rule with no give.''

Asimov's own writings, however, reveal that he was not completely
sure it was possible.

The problem, Prof Pigden says, is that fully autonomous robots
would need something approximating free will, the freedom to choose.

''Of course, this is all conjecture. But I am inclined to think
you could not reliably programme a human-like intelligence so that it
obeyed the rules no matter what.''

The idea of autonomous battlefield robots only compounds the
problem, Prof Pigden says.

''Even if you could [ensure they obey the rules], what is being
proposed with killer robots is that they don't obey that rule.''

When will the killer robots
arrive?

Robot soldiers, intelligent enough to make their own decisions,
armed and doing their masters' bidding.

It sounds like the plot for hundreds of science fiction movies.
Could it even be possible, let alone on the near horizon?The signs are
ominous.

• In November, 2012, the United States Defence Department issued a
directive banning the use of lethal force by fully autonomous weapons for
up to 10 years, unless specifically authorised by senior officials.

• In May, 2013, United Nations special rapporteur Christof Heyns,
commenting on that US directive when speaking to the UN Human Rights
Council, in Geneva, said however, ''It is clear that very strong forces,
including technology and budgets, are pushing in the opposite direction''.

• Late last month, such is their concern, more than 1000 leading
researchers in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) as well as
technologists and experts in related fields from throughout the world
signed an open letter calling for a ban on autonomous weapons, aka killer
robots. Signatories include physicist Stephen Hawking, Apple co-founder
Steve Wozniak, Skype co-founder Jaan Talinn, SpaceX and Tesla chief
executive Elon Musk and linguist and activist Noam Chomsky.

• The open letter, which now has almost 19,000 signatories globally,
states ''Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has reached a point where
the deployment of such systems is ... feasible within years, not decades''.

Hear ye hear ye

Excerpts from the open letter signed by leading artificial
intelligence and robotics researchers

''Autonomous weapons select and engage targets without human
intervention. They might include, for example, armed quadcopters that can
search for and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria . . .

''Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has reached a point
where the deployment of such systems is - practically if not legally -
feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous
weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after
gunpowder and nuclear arms . . .

''The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global
AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power
pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually
inevitable . . .

''Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations,
destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a
particular ethnic group. We therefore believe that a military AI arms race
would not be beneficial for humanity ...

''We believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in
many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so. Starting a
military AI arms race is a bad idea, and should be prevented by a ban on
offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control.''